In case you missed it, the Supreme Court of Canada has blown Prime Minister Stephen Harper's plans to reform the Senate to smithereens. That's no surprise, since unilateral updates to the Senate are impossible under our current constitution's stipulations. But the reaction from PM Harper, one of defeat, upsets me more, since it goes to show that even at 24 Sussex people are afraid to reopen the constitution. This mentality of despair towards the constitution can no longer continue - it is time to reopen the document for renewed debate.
You're welcome to call me crazy, but hear this: in a few short years, our constitution will turn 40 years old, and there has not been a single amendment. America has 27 amendments to its Constitution, two of which were passed before that great nation turned 20 years old. Furthermore, Quebec has never signed our constitution, and while that's not a deal breaker, it remains a strain within the federal family; they do not feel welcome within the constitution's parameters, and they are not alone in this sentiment.
In fact, it could be argued that the Supreme Court's ruling is a blessing in disguise. Our most important document of law is full of holes, and daily misinterpretations occur at every level of government. Pierre Trudeau's objective when repatriating the constitution was to ensure that Quebec nationalism had no leg to stand on, but to achieve this he had to concede everything from enshrining any and all aboriginal rights in gold plated locks (see sections 25 and 35) to allowing the provinces a get out of jail free card (see the "notwithstanding clause" for details). As a status aboriginal, I fully believe there are certain rights that no group of people can hold in perpetuity, and as a man familiar with the constitution, I believe it is a moral and logical fallacy to create a set of rules which contain their own self-destruct button.
Other examples of outdated ideas abound. Defining Canada as "multicultural" may sound nice but that definition has evolved; last I looked, caucasians worked at ethnic restaurants, and second and third generation Canadians had all but given up much of their mother country's cultural trappings. Arguing about culture and its association with fundamental rights at the constitutional level is a recipe for lawyers making mountains out of molehills, and a complete waste of political energy at the expense of common sense. Another ticking time bomb is the constitutional entanglement with healthcare. We took control of our constitution in 1982, the year that the eldest baby boomer turned 36, the youngest 18. Some quick addition will point out that guaranteed hip replacements might end up bankrupting this country long before any number of natural disasters via "climate change" do us in (take note again, students and professors at UNBC).
And what about all the things our constitution doesn't guarantee or stipulate? The right to bear arms and the right to private property would both be welcome additions to our constitution throughout Canada. And I'm sure that the transgender community would be happy to see the constitution simply state that "persons and citizens" have legal rights, not genders.
We need to learn to bargain as a nation, as it is one of those methods that can lead a country to greatness. Perhaps we were mistaken to become more like our American counterparts, having a written constitution with an amending formula, instead of continuing along the British path of a living constitution, which is changed by MP's, Lords, and the Monarch just like any other legislation. But we're stuck with the status quo until the premiers and PM agree to chat about it, and as long as they despair over our constitution, the Supreme Court's decision will be a death knell instead of a call to action.
